The Many Flaws of Trump’s Afghanistan ‘Strategy’

There were a few other problems with the Afghanistan speech that I didn’t address in my previous post. One of these was Trump’s conceit that he was eschewing nation-building while endorsing a policy of propping up a weak foreign government indefinitely. This was related to the absurd claim that “American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically” while offering only the vaguest outline of a strategy that seems virtually indistinguishable from that of Trump’s predecessors. We are supposed to believe that there is dramatic change when there is almost total continuity with the failed policy Trump inherited, and we are supposed to accept that the U.S. isn’t going down the same fruitless path it has been traveling for a decade and a half.

Another problem was the thinly-veiled threat against Pakistan:

Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.

There is no question that Pakistan is an unreliable partner, but it isn’t likely to be made more reliable or cooperative by issuing threats and saying that the U.S. is aligning with India against them. Trump is in the habit of making demands of other states while threatening dire consequences if they fail to comply, but as we have seen this has only made the other states more intransigent. Encouraging India to play a larger role in Afghanistan is bound to alarm Pakistan’s military and political leaders, and that doesn’t bode well for reducing their support for militant groups.

One other problem is the delusion that sending more American forces to Afghanistan will prompt other states to do likewise:

We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own. We are confident they will.

I have no idea where this confidence comes from, since U.S. allies have been steadily reducing or ending their involvement in Afghanistan for years. There is no chance that NATO members are going to be able to justify returning to Afghanistan once they have already left, and the few that are still there in small numbers aren’t likely to be sending any more soldiers. Our allies and other partners aren’t obliged to contribute more to what is now a war of choice for the U.S., and there would be strong political opposition in most allied countries to doing so. Trump’s fantasy that he has been already successful in cajoling allies to contribute more to their own defense is all the more ridiculous in this context. Considering Trump’s ineptitude in alliance management, there is no reason to think that NATO and other governments will commit anything to support Trump’s escalation. The administration likes to claim that their foreign policy is not one of “America alone,” but when it comes to escalating the war in Afghanistan alone is exactly what the U.S. will be.

Yes. Trump is continuing every one of the Bush/Obama wars. He already intensified our support for the Saudi starving and wrecking of Yemen, and now he’s intensifying commitments in Afghanistan.

Those of us who had hoped for an America First policy have been completely betrayed by this man. He is a liar. In 2018 we should be working to kick out Establishment Republicans who helped persuade him to betray us and go down the path of more war, more immigration, more favors for Wall Street and more globalism taking jobs away from Americans.

One thing we may not have considered: That Trump, no matter WHAT he said, will do nothing in Afghanistan. What campaign promise has he kept?

And then he will claim we are winning and his actions have caused this major change from Obama’s policy. And he will lie, and lie, and lie. Just like he’s always done. And his base will eat it up like candy.

I don’t know if anything will work insofar as preventing a major war between India and Pakistan. But the consequence of a nuclear exchange in Asia would be so devastating that we should certainly try to do what we can prevent it.

Russia, China, Japan and the European Union would also benefit from a reduction in hostilities even if they aren’t always above playing India and Pakistan off against each other for purposes of “strategic balancing.” They should all be encouraged to support peace negotiations.

Of course, the major obstacle to peace between India and Pakistan is probably opportunistic nationalist politicians in both countries who inflame these tensions for political power. And there’s no simple solution for that.

btw, Shortly before 9/11, I read an article (I’m pretty sure it was in the New Republic) which stated that the Bush administration was planning a major strategic shift towards India and away from Pakistan. That didn’t go so well.

@Swami
Agreed with Bray. From a macro standpoint, I think we all agree that while it’s generally best by far to stay out of other people’s business –

If we see tensions rising in the world, particularly amongst nuclear countries, and are concerned for humans and the planet, diplomacy is by FAR the best way to deal with it. There was a time when the State Department was filled with massively sophisticated and connected diplomats who could be useful in getting people to the table, helping set ground rules, letting them talk it out.

Trump’s skill set of choosing sides, saber rattling, and military deployment are the worst ways to do it.